The issuance of cheques in relation to a settlement deed constitutes a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of such debt remains unless effectively rebutted by the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 2/9/2013 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in CC No.244/2009 and confirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Shivamogga, in Criminal Appeal No.224/2013 vide judgment dtd. 27/8/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:-

The complainant and accused jointly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 11/7/2007 and they have agreed to contribute equally towards consideration of the purchase of property. Accordingly, they have entered into an agreement and accused agreed to pay Rs.01.00 Crore 80 Lakhs and the complainant had agreed to Rs.20.00 Lakhs and over all Rs.43.00 Crore payable. In the balance amount of Rs.43.00 Crore payable, the accused had agreed to pay Rs.20.00 Crore and Rs.70.00 Lakhs and the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.22.00 Crore and 30 Lakhs. Then, the complainant and accused have jointly entered into Memorandum of Understanding with one Anil Kumar M.N. for purchase of property measuring 73.65 acres at Mandya National Paper Mill Housing Colony at Hulikere Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, which is acquired by the said Anil Kumar through successful bidding in Court auction. The consideration for purchase of the said property was fixed at Rs.45.00 Crore as per the Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 11/7/2007. Both accused and complainant have agreed to contribute equally towards consideration and on signing the agreement, the accused agreed to pay Rs.01.00 Crore 80 Lakhs and the complainant agreed to pay Rs.20.00 Lakhs. In the balance amount of Rs.43.00 Crore payable, the accused had agreed to pay Rs.20.00 Crore 70 Lakhs and the complainant had agreed to pay of Rs.22.00 Crore 30 Lakhs. Towards initial commitment of Rs.02.00 Crore payable together by the complainant and accused, the accused had given two cheques for Rs.90.00 Lakhs, which was drawn on Indusind Bank, Mysuru Branch dtd. 11/7/2007. The complainant had issued cheques for Rs.10.00 Lakhs dtd. 11/7/2007. The cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and the cheques issued by the complainant were honoured. Due to failure on the part of the accused to pay advance, the said Anil Kumar has cancelled the purchase agreement and issued notice of cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding. The complainant by alleging the breach of contract, claimed liquidated damages of Rs.05.00 Crores from the accused for his failure. But, mutual settlement in the presence of mediators was finally arrived and in the said settlement, the accused has agreed to pay Rs.01.00 Crore 60 Lakhs as liquidated damages to the complainant. A written settlement deed was executed by the accused along with his wife Mrs. Zeba Nazar on 12/7/2008. It is further asserted that the liquidated damages of Rs.01.00 Crore 60 lakhs was agreed to be paid by the accused by way of 13 cheques of which, 11 cheques of Rs.10.00 Lakhs each and two cheques of Rs.25.00 Lakhs each. Accordingly, the accused has issued cheques in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding and the complainant has presented one of the cheques ie., the present cheque in this case and the same was bounced for Insufficient Funds. Then the complainant has also issued a legal notice and the notice sent through registered post returned with an endorsement 'Intimation Delivered, Not claimed'. But, the notice sent to the other address of the accused was duly served. Since, the said cheque amount was not paid, the complaint came to be lodged. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. Thereafter, the accused has appeared and enlarged on bail. The accused has also denied accusation